UN Convention on the Rights of the Disabled (NOT!) Ratified

[Cutlass]

not sure if serious......

 

[bhsup]

No smilies indicating otherwise. Yep, quite serious.

 

[warpus]

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnew...n-un-treaty-gop-and-critics-slam-threat-to-us



So, not just a disabilities act, but a UN push to force the US to increase abortions and destroy home schooling, among other things. Thinking maybe it was a good thing our GOP Senators were looking out for us on this one.

That just reads like the rantings of a madman (not what you wrote, what you quoted)

 

[aelf]

That just reads like the rantings of a madman (not what you wrote, what you quoted)

I feel quite comfortable calling people who agree so completely with madmen a madman.

 

[bhsup]

Don't worry, I'm used to that People say I'm mad over quite a few of my views. Well I guess I'll be proven right when the ChiComs invade in 30-50 years (pfft, and probably flying the UN flag.)

 

[aelf]

I don't think being mad is necessarily a bad thing (at least not unless we're talking about specific mental illnesses). There's a wide range of mad people, though.

 

[dutchfire]

Of course, the U.S. Constitution does not grant the federal government any such authorities, so the treaty would appear to be unconstitutional on its face, according to experts

In Missouri v. Holland, the Supreme Court ruled that the power to make treaties under the U.S. Constitution is a power separate from the other enumerated powers of the federal government, and hence the federal government can use treaties to legislate in areas which would otherwise fall within the exclusive authority of the states.

I'll admit to not being a US constitutional scholar, but it would seem that treaties can not be unconstitutional and that the experts you quoted are full of it.

Also, Missouri vs. Holland seems weirdly appropriate

 

[ori]

Ehm, the actual text of the convention does not lend itself to the argument about abortion or sterilization - what it does is require member states of the convention to provide disabled persons the same access to such services as they provide to non-disabled persons. States are still free to bar access to e.g. abortion to everyone (under this convention at least).

In particular, States Parties shall:

a) Provide persons with disabilities with the same range, quality and standard of free or affordable health care and programmes as provided to other persons, including in the area of sexual and reproductive health and population-based public health programmes;

as for the strilization bogeyman - that actually goes back to the eugenics discussion much more and not surprisingly the convention does cover it, stating the exact opposite of what is stated by its distractors:

1. States Parties shall take effective and appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against persons with disabilities in all matters relating to marriage, family, parenthood and relationships, on an equal basis with others, so as to ensure that:

a) The right of all persons with disabilities who are of marriageable age to marry and to found a family on the basis of free and full consent of the intending spouses is recognized;

b) The rights of persons with disabilities to decide freely and responsibly on the number and spacing of their children and to have access to age-appropriate information, reproductive and family planning education are recognized, and the means necessary to enable them to exercise these rights are provided;

c) Persons with disabilities, including children, retain their fertility on an equal basis with others.

 

[Antilogic]

Wait, you expected the Santorum-Morris-Beck crowd to actually read the convention and discover there are no plans for mandatory sterilization or the elimination of home-schooling in America? Nah, that sounds like too much work, better just rile up the base with imagined tales of UN atrocities being wrought in the name of paraplegics.

 

[Camikaze]

The argument against this treaty seems to boil down to "let's only ever do anything unilaterally, because working together and forging agreement impinges on our sovereignty!"

But is it something we even need to ratify and enforce in the US? The OP clearly states the US already has the ADA. What exactly is the benefit of having this treaty apply to the US instead of just relying on our own laws already in place?

How would you reconcile the argument of the conspiracy guy you quoted that it's a step towards world domination by the UN, with the argument that the treaty would supposedly not actually do anything (because US law apparently covers it all anyway)? And does the argument against this treaty in particular, as a manifestation of the regulatory tentacles of international organisations and international law in general, apply to all international treaties ever?

 

[bhsup]

How would you reconcile the argument of the conspiracy guy you quoted that it's a step towards world domination by the UN, with the argument that the treaty would supposedly not actually do anything (because US law apparently covers it all anyway)?

My initial comment was based solely/entirely on reading of the OP. I had no knowledge of this treaty before that.

And does the argument against this treaty in particular, as a manifestation of the regulatory tentacles of international organisations and international law in general, apply to all international treaties ever?

Probably not all international treaties ever, but I am not going to do a yes/no for every treaty ever ratified. In general I do not approve of treaties that try to tell nations how they should conduct their internal affairs. The UN should not be getting involved in crap like that. It should only be concerning itself with trying to mediate issues between countries in conflict/close to coming to conflict. It has no business butting its nose into our internal business, and frak it if it tries to.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

In the long run, I really don't see the proven propensity for American politicians to be dicks standing a snowballs chance in hell against the American peoples proven propensity to stand up for the little guy when they see them getting the short straw.

 

[Angst]

Don't worry, I'm used to that People say I'm mad over quite a few of my views. Well I guess I'll be proven right when the ChiComs invade in 30-50 years (pfft, and probably flying the UN flag.)

Flying the UN flag might be just them to blame as lack of support to the UN from the Western countries sure as hell doesn't secure it under our belt.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Don't worry, I'm used to that People say I'm mad over quite a few of my views. Well I guess I'll be proven right when the ChiComs invade in 30-50 years (pfft, and probably flying the UN flag.)

Firstly its not Invading its Liberating.
Secondly I think the communism invasion timetable has been push forward thanks to Comrade Obama. I am hoping that they liberate before Obamas third term as President', yes we can !